Jump to content

NEWS
  • WELCOME TO CRYPTOCURRENCYTALK!
  • We've upgraded the website with a lot of new features!
  • 3 NEW THEMES! Click on the + Themes button above!
  • Notice about SOCIAL LINKS: UPDATE YOUR SOCIAL LINKS
  • New video section, add your videos: VIDEO SECTION
  • Advertising will be available shortly, hold tight.
  • If you have any issues with the new site, please submit a support ticket: SUPPORT

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 11/14/2017 in all areas

  1. 9 points
    It's not over 'until the fat lady sings' .. Rob, I believe you are a 'brilliant mind' and developer .. Please could you try and become more a part of the community as at the moment you are sort of standing on a 'pedestal' and it does seem to me that not only are you looking down at us but we are looking up at you. I don't really know how to put this into wrds any better than that. Your Gridcoin Community, it is yours as much as it is ours, has progressed a long way in the last year. There is a large 'core community', of very dedicated Gridcoiners, who are trying their very best to fulfill the need to 'fire fight' problems whilst progessing this project down an equitable, secure socioeconomic eco friendly path. We are aware we are far from perfect and realise that in order to achieve any of our longterm goals and ambitions for this project that we have work together utilising the synergy that a cyber community of this sort offers. We have had and will continue to have disagreements. However in the long run, the majority of theses 'skirmishes' are resolved with time and in most cases the personalities involved are still talking to each other with the same commitment and dedication to shared goals. I appeal to you to continue to stay active in the community and please would you consider joining one of the Gridcoin Community's bi-weekly hangouts on mumble. We will 'bend over backwards' to facilitate any requirements you may have regarding times, security or any other matters that may concern you about joining the hangout. The community members as a whole who would benefit from you revealing your vision of the future of the Gridcoin Project and I'm sure that there would be many questions that community members would like to ask. Thanks for your work ..
  2. 7 points
    Welcome To The Future of Anonymous Cryptocurrency! DeepOnion is an anonymous cryptocurrency that is natively integrated with the TOR network. We increase the level of privacy for our crypto users to reduce the likelihood of being hacked or attacked by other legal & illegal entities. With DeepOnion, you can send and receive onions (ONION) over the TOR network. With DeepOnion your anonymity is guaranteed, you can send and receive private transactions using the DeepOnion wallet. Features: Highly Secure Transactions: The highly secure wallet is designed to keep your identity safe from government agencies and prying eyes. Instant Confirmations: Send and receive instant payments. You no longer have to wait several minutes or hours to receive a payment confirmation. Secure Wallet: Download the secure wallet for Windows, Mac or Linux. A paper wallet is also available if needed. Untraceable Payments: Send and receive payments anonymously and hide your identity. All transactions are private and sent through the TOR network. Cryptopia.co.nz: DeepOnion is proudly listed on the highly secure Cryptopia. You can buy and sell DeepOnion currency with ease. Free Airdrop: POW + POS + No ICOs or Crowdfunding means free coin distribution. We're also offering 40 rounds of free airdrops! Helpful DeepOnion Links: Official site: https://deeponion.org/ Official forum: https://deeponion.org/community/ Bitcointalk ANN: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2006010.0 Apply AirDrop: https://deeponion.org/community/apply.php FACEBOOK: http://facebook.com/deeponionx TWITTER: https://twitter.com/deeponionx REDDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/DeepOnion ENG Telegram: https://t.me/DeepOnionCoin Youtube ENG: https://www.youtube.com/deeponion
  3. 7 points
    jamescowens

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    A few comments... I am a relative newcomer to Gridcoin - I have been solo staking and pursuing research associated with Gridcoin since the middle of September. I use my real name, and you can look me up: https://www.gridcoinstats.eu/cpid/bc0621a4ac4610ffa400a0d298c02e23. Magnitude ~225 and balance about 180k GRC. I have been participating in distributed computing since 1999 with the original SETI client, and have been a BOINC contributor since its inception. I have a combined cobblestone score of almost 1.9 billion, and am ~#600 in the world by total credit and ~#159 in the world by RAC. So I think I can speak with some weight about BOINC contributions. 1. I signed onto Gridcoin because I believe it is the most altruistic of cryptocurrencies. It actually motivates people to use their spare cycles to do something good for humanity rather than simply generating heat. The stewards of Gridcoin need to always keep this in mind. 2. In this discussion, I see a founder who has been disengaged from the community for a while, but has suddenly come back on the scene with a heavier hand than ideal. I see a lot of disagreements that seem to be based on bruised egos. Folks need to calm down and talk rationally about the vision for GRC III. We need to keep the egos out of this. Given the time and money now invested in Gridcoin by many people, the stewards of this community owe it to the community to make the right choices. "First do no harm" should be the maxim. We cannot put into place changes that could be ultimately destabilizing and worse than what we have now. I voted yes to Halford’s proposal in the client poll, but that is a qualified yes, with the expectation that reality will be that the final vision for GRC III will be a mix of different contributions that further the stability, security, and scalability of Gridcoin. I sincerely hope that we have a spirited, but civil debate, and we end up with a hybrid of the different proposals that have been put forth which represents the best path forward. We need to stop looking at this as a black or white issue, and instead look at the actual technical and economic merits of the different components. Putting a coin together that ties into a complete other ecosystem (BOINC) and does so in a secure and scalable manner is a very difficult task. It is a much harder task than a straightforward "me-too" cryptocurrency... 3. If we want broad based participation in GRC that fits with its ideals, then we have to recognize that much of BOINC research is performed by individuals in a private capacity using personal computing resources. (I am one - these are my own machines - 6 quite capable hosts that do the work.) The ideal would be for everyone to participate in network from a block creation, research credit, and voting power standpoint proportional to their balance AND magnitude. However, there is an inherent tension in blockchain technology between scalability (performance) and transparency/equality. Consider that the Bitcoin network can manage about 50 tps or so. VISA’s network, on the other hand, can handle 50k tps+. The challenge for blockchain technologies to approach commercial private transaction networks in throughput is immense. A distributed transaction network that requires verified journal copies among all the nodes in a purely peer level manner is not going to scale well. This is because regardless of the actual technologies employed, each transaction is going to have a specific network entry point, and this transaction is going to have to be replicated across all of the nodes in a secure manner that prevents corruption of the ledger. The mitigation is to require only a few nodes to confirm a transaction to consider it “done” and then allow additional confirmation to occur afterwards, but we all know that carries risk of forks (the blockchain version of a replication A-B B-A conflict), replays, etc. Maybe we don't care to reach a VISA level of throughput. Quite frankly that level of throughput will never be required for GRC, unless we envision it being used for daily transactions at the cash register. This in fact is the biggest question around cryptocurrencies! Are they cash or gold? Or something in between? It seems that the general approach to solving these scalability problems among many of the new cryptocurrency developments is to divide the network into a set of “privileged” nodes, sometimes at multiple levels, to control the size of the set of nodes required to synchronize critical information (and also be able to create blocks), thereby reducing the overall network communication load and overall latency. Obviously, Halford’s proposal to adapt Dash’s Masternodes is a version of this. My guess is that we are not going to get around it. Some form of privileged nodes are going to have to be implemented to support scalability. We also have the additional issue of the interface to the BOINC project servers, which are inherently non-scalable, and require effectively a near O(1) relationship between Gridcoin network size and the load on the BOINC servers. We also cannot demand changes to the BOINC server logical interface structure as this would be untenable – it would be very difficult to get all of the BOINC project admins to agree and then keep the changes up to date. This complicates matters for us. We have to ensure a non-spoofable interface to the BOINC project servers to determine proper research credit, but can’t have everyone crowding in and cross-verifying. Again the specter of a set of privileged nodes (maybe even more constricted in the BOINC statistics case) rears its head again as the only viable solution to this problem. I don’t see a way around that either. The question is the exact form of these privileged nodes and who gets to participate. I am uncomfortable with Halford’s initial investment outlay of 400k GRC and a static IP address to act as a Master node. GRC is supposed to be primarily about contribution to BOINC research, but we need wallets to stay online to ensure network stability. The 400k level of investment plus a static IP requirement for a master node will all but eliminate the participation of researchers in the master nodes, and essentially divide the network into commercial investors that run the master nodes, and the researchers who are then second class citizens. (According to Gridcoin stats, there are only 175 addresses with balances 400k or greater, and some of these addresses could actually be part of the same wallet/node.) I agree that the number of master nodes has to be controlled. But what are the right requirements to participate? Personally, even though I have a dynamic IP set by my ISP, my machines stay up 100% of the time, and the IP address rarely changes. I run a full node, which has port 8333 forwarded from my router/firewall. To me it is important to be able to fully participate in the securing of the network. I have a level of service at the ISP that is not throttled in any way, so I don’t have an issue with the amount of data. I suspect that there are many other researchers with moderate balances that fit into that category. I think the balance requirement should be lower than 400k, maybe in the 25-50k range, and the requirement for a static IP should be removed. (Almost no one running machines personally has a static IP, because to get a static IP requires a commercial ISP account, and that is difficult and expensive to get for home.) It would seem to me that the qualification to act as a master node should derive from both balance plus magnitude. We need to adopt an appropriate formula. Maybe it should be something similar to the voting shares, where balance + magnitude is combined together. 4. As I have read the ongoing thread here at Cryptocurrency Talk, I feel like folks are calming down and getting down to the business of hammering out what needs to be done. Let’s hope this continues – we will get a great result if everyone can work together. (This is also posted on Steemit.)
  4. 6 points
    TheCharlatan

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    The proposal for PoSE sounds insecure and near unachievable. How would you ensure that the network is not periodically attacked and certain nodes hindered from the voting process? In Proof of Work this is trivially evaded, since one miner would take much longer to find a single block than many miners, which means that you'd constantly have to attack the entire network over weeks for it to succeed - an impossible scenario given the resources this would take. Mining is supposed to secure the blockchain. Target nonces are made purposefully hard to have competition between miners on who gets to solve the next block. It is an arms race by design and works well like this. If you invert this scheme by giving higher monetary rewards for lower nonces, you remove the incentive for innocent miners to do proof of work (as you stated above). An attacker however would not care about this small reduced reward, if this would mean, he could just increment nonces faster to be able to successfully mine several blocks in succession and execute a successful double spend. You even implemented a similar scheme before in pre V8 gridcoin and it was successfully exploited on livenet by doing more proof of work. I cannot see how this would survive an attacker, and therefore reject this proposal in its current state.
  5. 5 points
    Frank0051

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    I do think it's a bit disingenuous for us to be praising one person with 56M in voting shares for swinging the vote when several us us have complained about the vote weighting.
  6. 5 points
    Frank0051

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    I don't have a dog in this fight, but I tend to agree with this sentiment. I'm fairly surprised as to how this was presented on this forum complelty outside of the IRC and the SteemIT roadmap proposals and appears to be in isolation from the hang-outs. While I understand we can all be proud of our creations, it would be nice to perhaps ad hominen attacks. As I have read through this and seen different people's reactions, I started out fairly opposed, but I think I could support it for the sake of trying - although I'm likely going to abstain given the tenor of the disagreement. I guess I still have a month to figure out my direction...
  7. 5 points
    Mercosity

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Rob, with all due respect as our 'Founder', you seem to have a strange concept of who the Gridcoin Community are and why we are here. The Gridcoin Community are not simply those who are communicating with you on this forum. It is both unfair and unbecoming, as our 'Founder', to dismiss and deprecate individuals who have shown that they have the best interests of the Gridcoin Community in mind. Please don't continue to be 'blinkered' in your approach to the Gridcoin Community. We, the Gridcoin Community, are an intelligent 'entity' with a healthy 'mistrust' of plans which are thrust upon us without due respect. We do not 'hate'. 'Mistrust' is not 'hate' and can be changed to 'trust' with a little patience and 'honest' communication through more channels than simply this forum. It's time to remove the 'blinkers' and approach the community in a more open, friendly, less adversarial manner and you will find that the reaction will be far more trusting.
  8. 5 points
    Tomas Brod

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    You are loosing trust Rob. Multiple members are showing you that you proposals are flawed and insecure. I know it is hard to invent a secure system. There were attempts by me and other members. You are advised to read the technical details and learn what problems are there and then try to how you are going to solve them. If you decide to ignore the problems and push your changes in, there are going to be security incidents. There are no my proposals vs yours. We should work together and improve. Also if you just want to setup a coin and then leave it on autopilot, you should make sure that it is secure, otherwise it is going to fail. Also calling our (my and the rest of community) proposals as piecemeal and your one-swoosh is not entirely correct. Even if you use another codebase, you would have to implement gridcoin logic on top. You would have to implement your NN, associator, reward system, staking/mining tweaks and voting. How is that less piecemeal than DWP, GAA and BM+MRC+Superdrop? I do not ask you to take them, I am just asking to consider them. It would be best if some existing coin provided support for our features, but to this point no one provided a clear mapping of features to services. CM was the closest, but he mostly wrote "yeah, we could use this for that..", but not HOW to use it. And please note that Total Credit Delta (TCD) was my idea, so stop attributing it to Marco /ravon.
  9. 5 points
    TheCharlatan

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Lets iterate through all your points again: You want to keep Proof of Work mining difficulty low by giving a larger rewards for lower hash targets. You also implement client side rules to make everyone behave according to the scheme you envision. The problem with this is apparent: Someone does not care about financial incentives, recompiles the code and is able to mine much faster than anybody else. So you introduce a theoretical difficulty adjustment algorithm, that adjusts very quickly to high hashpower. Such an algorithm is however near impossible to design and it still is possible,that an attacker mines selfishly to enable him to produce many blocks in succession, without having to compete with the network. Apart from this he could also disrupt confirmation times by mining a few quick blocks in succession such that the difficulty rises sharply. The network would take some time to react to this sudden change in difficulty and blocks would be mined much slower. This is similar to what Bitcoin Cash experienced during its launch. You then say that the Groestl hash function should be modified with new seeds (which is pure obscurity with the threat of ASICS in mind, there is only marginal short-term benefit to this and it might be potentially dangerous) and then go on to propose that mined blocks be associated with a beacon and each beacon would only be allowed to easily mine a block after a certain amount of time. This association does not offer any extra protection against an attacker. Beacons are plentifully and gridcoin addresses as well. An attacker could just create a large number of beacons and is then able to attack successfully again by creating a block with each of them in quick succession. The last option left to curb this attack with your proposal then is to only allow CPIDs a beacon, that have magnitude > 1. Again, this solves nothing. The attacker has to spend marginally more resources on magnitude to claim his CPIDs, while the newbie has even higher hurdles to master to get into the system. Above you explain how a misbehaving project can be banned in the event that the magnitude would influence who gets to solve the next block and a project's boinc credit stats are tampered with. De-whitelisting will not save you in time. Especially because there won't be any tamper evidence that could lead to suspicion. Creating additional CPIDs with some amount of RAC is not suspicious at all, it should be day-to-day business. I don't see how this "Green Proof of Work" proposal will withstand any form of peer review. It offers little to no benefit over just staying with the current Proof of Stake mechanism and uses security by obscurity principles. There are no camps, only proposals that are implemented, then need to withstand peer review and only then get merged into the code. It is unfair to say, that the only other direction is a piecemeal solution. We have discussed using newer codebases and migrating to a new chain (especially because the current chain contains email addresses of around 2000 users basically in plain text) and are still committed in that discussion to this very minute - you are free to join this discussion.
  10. 5 points
    C.M

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Hey Rob, Long time no see - sorry I've not had the time to respond to your emails, but I replied quite negatively to your proposals and email snippets in the private OPs slack private channel - you really aught to be more visibly present in Slack rather than just emails (which can be a bit of an echo/isolation chamber). In terms of calling yourself the CTO - there technically isn't a Gridcoin company thus there is no such role, parts of your email on this topic which I found quite disconcerting/disturbing especially the 'firing/taking-over' terminology/intentions being thrown about by yourself - not confidence inspiring given the increased power you'll have in a masternode environment compared to the power you yield in the current network. The github repo ownership could be viewed as a CTO role, except the community has already begun working around this centralized repo for non-core-client work: https://github.com/gridcoin-community I don't believe that a forum poll is appropriate for making this decision, it doesn't involve the Gridcoin network (coins/magnitude) and is vulnerable to being manipulated very easily. Forum polls back in 2014/2015 were rushed in the panic move from classic to research and led to a low quality economic policies being implemented (30* reduction, etc). The precedent for serious development polls has been 2-3month duration 'both por/pos' type within the Gridcoin network. I have thus voted to abstain from this poll. Speaking of the forum poll, it's unfortunately biased in that it only provides the choice between your proposal & maintaining the current codebase - there have been alternative proposals for the last few months: https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Tasks/issues/183 (Please accept your invite to the Gridcoin-Community organization) updated post: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@jringo/gridcoin-research-4-0-2018-roadmap-progress-report#@cm-steem/re-jringo-gridcoin-research-4-0-2018-roadmap-progress-report-20171111t133914323z (being somewhat active on steemit would be cool too) ---------------------- Directly responding to your proposal document: Segwit and larger blocks are not being combined in the one codebase, it has split into Bitcoin Core (segwit) and Bitcoin Cash (Larger blocks - superior). Likewise, a large market cap does not mean technology is superior - there are many scamcoins worth far more than Gridcoin currently is worth, that does not mean they're better than GRC. Segwit isn't desirable technology neither, haha! Quote In addition, the blockchain balances and wallets are more compatible, so I propose we stay with Bitcoin. Snapshotting a bitcoin codebase coin distribution for claiming coins via private key import has been proven possible by multiple Graphene projects who each created a custom genesis.json file which contained their userbase's public keys (donation addresses | snapshot addresses) & allocated balance. Generating this file would be a compute intensive process, however its use after generated is simple for kickstarting a new blockchain's initial distribution. It's the same process which would be required for any codebase snapshot/sharedrop, we cannot repeat the classic -> researcher burning process as it was an unnecessarily centralized issuance which resulted in a significant sum of funds going unclaimed (foundation funds). The wallets are more compatible, sure - moving to graphene would result in a loss of current UI, but it would yield an easily customizable UI: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@cm-steem/gridcoin-s-customised-bitshares-web-wallet-dex What other cryptocurrency toolkits/codebases did you evaluate? Do you have notes of feature comparisons? Do you not think that privacy focused cryptocurrencies are going to be heavily regulated in the near future? What about graphene, dragonchain, hyperledger, other proposals, etc? I'm concerned that your proposal for moving to Dash involved very few community members, the only masternode thread outwith here has zero replies in the development subforum & the community based alternative codebase threads/github-issues lack your involvement. If we do end up going down the route of masternodes, throwing away their technologies brand recognition doesn't sound beneficial - likewise we shouldn't be using the terminology "Nerual Network" because it isn't a neural network, "Gridcoin statistics mechanism" or something functional/realistic would be more honest/accurate. Graphene also funds witness positions at a rate controlled by the committee, I don't think that having to fork up hundreds of thousands of GRC to provide critical network functionality is going to yield many participants - the majority of the Gridcoin userbase does not have the 100k required to create a poll nevermind 400k to destroy for a network role. Masternodes entrench power to the wealthy, as participants have to pay a large sum of GRC for the right to run a masternode where as with Graphene there is not an up front investment required to become a witness/committee member and those who are voted in will have had to campaign to the community & hopefully be the most trusted entities from the community (Benefit being you can vote them out with DPOS, where as you're potentially stuck with masternode operators permanently). Rather than paying all users via large superblocks, would it not be better to investigate the 'Manual Reward Claim (MRC)' proposal suggested by the community? Steemit has the ability to access your rewards with the click of a button, coincidentally a Graphene crypto. If MRC was/is made possible, this would apply to multiple codebase proposals. Can you provide any documentation on this proposal? I don't see it alongside the other legitimate CPID/Beacon improvement proposals: https://github.com/gridcoin/Gridcoin-Research/wiki/DEV-CPID-Ownership My beacon proposal: https://github.com/gridcoin/Gridcoin-Research/wiki/DEV-CPID-Ownership#cms-proposal TL;DR: CPID is not a good unique identifier, it can merge/split and be maliciously/accidentally changed. Verifying userID ownership is an improvement over CPID verification, as userID is an unique id which never changes on an individual BOINC project basis (no matter what happens to your BOINC account). BOINC web code done: https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/pull/2134/ https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/issues/2118 2 new PHP pages, only WCG and perhaps Einstein would be incompatible due to homebrew BOINC web server codebase implementations. For projects which don't immediately implement the above PR, we could fall back on CPID onwership proof if an userID which shares the same CPID is successfully validated. No need for a centralized entity moderating/maintaining the beacon system - users could create a new key to reclaim ownership of their BOINC account. Inter/Intra crypto replay protection (can't steal registration here and register elsewhere, likewise replaying my beacon on the GRC network wouldn't work). Cache project's public openssl key & verify userID ownership without contacting the BOINC project once (massive reduction in scraping projects). Requires: Peer review Project admins to perform minimum project maintenance (2 new PHP pages & new openssl keypair). Once implemented in BOINC projects, implementation within Gridcoin/Any-Crypto. NN isn't a desirable branding (it isn't a neural network) & branding not a feature. This is a substantial economic policy change proposal which should not be taken lightly. How long does 'leasing' last for? What happens to the paid funds (burn or centralized fund?) Will neural network leasers be forced to use the one neural network statistics gathering implementation (security risk) or will third party scripts be possible? Why bring mining/pow back into the equation after a long period of POS? What happens to the foundation funds in your proposal? Graphene too would eliminate interest payments on the core GRC asset. Graphene doesn't require this, witnesses are largely not publicly visible - users connect to the network via their light/web wallets which interact with full nodes which don't participate in the consensus mechanism. Reintroducing proof of work is a huge step back technologically; POW is responsible for significant amounts of pollution, it will negatively impact BOINC computations (mind we saw a huge increase in computing power pointed at BOINC after we left Scrpyt for POS?). Any future proposed codebase should not involve proof of work (IMO). I completely object to this, we already see almost nobody making polls because of the local 100k balance requirement, now imagine poll participation if the required balance was 4 times the current amount? It'd be pushing many voices entirely out of the picture within the Gridcoin network, further empowering the rich in the GRC network. Graphene has coin based voting for committee and witness members; the committee then have the abiltiy to vote amongst themselves the network rules (changing witness payouts, block timings) and with the gridcoin graphene proposal would be responsible for maintaining the list of whitelisted BOINC projects in a majority vote basis manner. How we'd go about implementing casual polls or community project polls (for the committee to act upon) would require some original development - see: https://github.com/FollowMyVote/StakeWeightedVoting One cannot evaluate the security of a system prior to its implementation, as far as recent history goes security is not your strong point (not try to be a dick, rather making an accurate observation given the last 3-5 months history). Graphene has 2-3 second block times (which can be tweaked to reduce blockchain bloat) point is that fast payments aren't unique to dash & TBH not a problem right now in Gridcoin. Applicable to any C++ ported NN replacement, though is it neccessary to track history before the previous payout if we're able to achieve 100% accuracy of payments? 'Unlimited scalability' is likewise achievable with the userID ownership beacon proposal, a reduced NN participation rate and the suggested manual reward claim functionality. I'm not massively confident in daily superblock payouts given recent historical insecurity of superblocks and the old cryptolottery system (which aimed to reward many users in the one block a couple years back). Repeating myself here, but CPID isn't a perfect identifier - userID beacon proposal > CPID. I'd love to see some public documentation/proposals to peer review this new CPID associator system. New codebase wise yes, but any changes we make to the dash codebase invalidate this claim until we have a professional security audit - like the recent security audit made entirely public except performed internally/privately at our discretion. The proposed short/concentrated development (and closed participation planning) period likewise does not inspire confidence in the security of the proposed network. Sounds good, moving away from RAC based magnitude towards total credit delta is a great proposal for any codebase. Certainly a legitimate advantage, there are many bitcoin based libraries which the current gridcoin codebase is entirely incompatible with. That said, there are several Graphene based libraries which we can benefit from too.
  11. 5 points
    nateonthenet

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    I share @bzaborow's confusion/concern about the PoSE seeming a lot more PoW-heavy. In addition, this looks like it will completely disenfranchise smaller investors (400,000 GRC is a pretty high bar -- at most 1000 people can ever have that stake, and realistically that number is a lot lower) both in terms of voting and in terms of any sort of rewards for holding beyond whatever happens to the price. The latter is probably less concerning than the former; "Gridcoin 2" was cool insofar as it sort of gave everyone a voice if they cared to use it and could be a future governance utility for things far beyond the chain itself, and this new proposal will completely strip that. I may be able to get behind this if we can get some reassurances that it's not going to destroy the premise that Gridcoin is more energy-efficient than the competition to focus more computing power on distributed computing, and if we can at least talk about ways to avoid completely disenfranchising the 99.9% of people who aren't ever going to come remotely close to having 400,000 GRC.
  12. 4 points
    LumenDan

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    The re-base proposal (as it stands) lacks a voting mechanism for researchers via the wallet UI, that will be a deal-breaker for many but I don't think it has to be. The fact that we are debating a poll here on CCT shows that the wallet doesn't have to be the only method of voting and that and that with a solid policy on external polls researchers can have meaningful input into the operation of Gridcoin. I think the wallet UI *MUST* notify all users of polls so everyone gets an opportunity to vote on important changes. Ideally I want to see voting incorporated into the wallet UI and it seems like that has already been considered as an addition to the re-base after initial release. In the interim, if we establish a policy for community voting outside of the masternode network and ensure that all users are notified of polls, I think an inclusive democratic process can be maintained. We have had polls about favorite forums and vote weight in the current system so lets use that information to come up with a reasonable external voting mechanism.
  13. 4 points
    shu

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Just chiming in here quick to relate the reason for my No vote here and on the network: I generally think moving forward with a technology re-base is a good idea. However, I do not agree with the integration of a masternode system at all. As previously mentioned, it centralizes the network a lot more (most masternodes are just spun up AWS instances or the likes) and incentivizes huge stakeholders to continuously boot up more masternodes for further profits at the cost of the little man to the point where affording a masternode becomes impossible due to previous players holding most coins. It also carries a bitter taste of extortion with it and incentivized nodes don't seem to be something that Gridcoin needs or wants. Also, there was previously a successful poll with over 90% voting for fixed staking rewards as the next hard fork. I do not agree we just overthrow a successful vote to make room for yet another vote or system that does not take that wish into account at all, correct me if I'm wrong here but Masternodes and the Dash code-base doesn't account for that at all and wouldn't allow for that in the future the way the community wished for. From a political and ethical standpoint, I fully agree with @jringo on his points about Dash and think we all need to consider these points carefully! Until these issues are successfully addressed first, I will keep my say to no and hope this proposal gets put back to the writing desk to find a fairer solution for everyone or stick with the current model that might not be perfect, but at least doesn't require thousands of dollars worth to actively participate in the system and open the floodgates for a potentially centralized network. My 2 cts, Shu
  14. 4 points
    nateonthenet

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    I'm going to take a probably unpopular stance and say that it only partially matters what the community wants here. What matters more (and simultaneously encourages and worries me) is the degree to which the developers support this proposal, because the community isn't going to be responsible for implementing or maintaining it -- they merely vote with their wallets at the end of the day, so to speak, on whether or not they like the direction things are going in. That said, I'm a little concerned at Rob's desire to "fire and forget" here because realistically what is going to happen if we don't have strong support from iFoggz, Ravon, etc. is that in a year or two we're going to be exactly back at the point we are now, trying to update a codebase that hasn't been maintained all along. Conversely, if these guys are on board with the plan and willing to stick with it, I'm inclined to support whatever they're doing since (sorry, Rob!) Rob is implying that he'd like to more or less vanish again after this next push until his next burst of energy (whenever that may be) and it will be up to them to maintain it in the meantime. So if @Marco Nilsson, @iFoggz, @TheCharlatan, etc. are behind the plan, as well as some of the largest stakeholders like @VORTAC above, then I'd say let's get it done, but we do need to prepare for Rob ducking back into the background based on history and his own words here in this thread, so whatever we do, it needs to be something that survives his absence for the following year or two.
  15. 4 points
    jamescowens

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Rob, I wrote a much lengthier response and it apparently was lost by Cryptocurrency Talk on post. Oh well. Shorter is probably better anyway. I think you need to give time for the community to discuss your proposals. All facets of your proposal may not be the consensus way forward, but I bet many pieces of it will be. You are looking at this as too black or white an issue. Also support is not waning on your proposal. It is too new to even comment on the level of support. It is not Rob's GRC III versus Brod's 4.0, rather, it should be ideas pulled from all that are the best way forward. I definitely think we need to keep GRC Bitcoin based, but rebase the code to integrate Bitcoin security fixes. I do not agree with wholesale wiping of the existing block chain and replacing with a genesis block. That is just like a fork in my book.We need to be really sensitive to the integration with the exchanges and the exchange wallet upgrade process to minimize the disturbance. Here is an idea. Create a special genesis block that is imbedded within the block chain and is a form of a superblock that contains all of the balances across all of the wallets up to that point, but is still part of the actual blockchain, not a new origin. Any new wallet/clients coming online after that can have the option to download either the entire history or just from that special block forward.
  16. 4 points
    Tomas Brod

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    I agree that WU hoarding is not a big issue. However the problem of determining progression of project is significant. I would not call it flaw, but rather challenge. How to determine the progression of a project? By number of project credits gained (globally). I don't think this is a viable route as all projects are allowed to assign their credits however they want. Some projects give more credits for the same computation and some very little. In this approach, it would be most viable to crunch Collatz exclusively. Assume that each day every project progressed evenly: but that is the situation we have now. Allow grc admin (or committee) to assign how important every project is. Ye, seriously. Some projects do research "on the knee" and in narrow band (yafu?), while other do larger spectrum (WCG). I thin you should be more rewarded for crunching WCG than (something other). But this approach opens a lightning storm on the committee. Can you please elaborate on this?
  17. 4 points
    Tomas Brod

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    I think you are trying to insult me. That is not nice and you should stop. TL;DR; I am certainly not trying to force my proposals onto anyone, nor trying to put myself above anyone else. However, I will continue to question even if it is an authority. Claiming that I am anally-retentive is also false. I already took a shit today (hope I understood the double-word right). And i am certain that, according to graph theory, multiple trees together make a forest [link]. What I done, was review his proposal. And they are not unrealistic edge cases. I asked for an clarification/explanation and pointed out a invalid assumption. It was meant to help him refine his idea. As you failed to notice, I have not dismissed it. None of my proposals mention GUI, but I expect there would be one, that is fairly easy to use. I get that some of these are exaggerate examples, so I will not bother correcting. You made the stake kernel that takes average users magnitude into account insecure and I do not need to explain that it could be exploited. I then made this v8 with support of the community as a temporary quick solution. It was not my intention to require average user to invest large amounts of money in order to stake. It is quite the opposite, I worked hard on coming up with different solutions to pay users faster (and other authors). I agree that my proposals are not completely pure, they do contain some intristics and heuristics. But they all have a reason and are necessary to prevent tampering. If you can come up with a system that is less complex that would be good. I certainly do not have a doctorate and if I continue wasting time arguing with you I might not even be a bachelor. I am aiming for simple solutions and you seem to be aiming for security through obscurity. If the system is designed well and is working you do not need to explain how good it is designed, because it would be visible. Because they are your idea and you understand it better? Maybe. Btw what are trigger height in dash, where can I read more and how you plan to use them. This is a discussion. Bitcoin (and Gridcoin) does check that too. Every wallet node check all transactions and won't allow any cheat. The checkblock/acceptblock is not secure because parts are executed in the wrong order on data that might be incomplete. I do not question iFoggz dedication to design of the associator. I believe he can arrive to a solution that we all would find secure. Your claim "thats secure" is not very convincing. You contradict yourself. You just described a 4 piecemeal solutions that yet unproven conceptual ideas made by You. And what is more, they are not even fully specified so we do not know wheter they would stand a perr review or not. I certainly do not want to be the only one to understand the workings. And again, after the selected proposal is implemented it will ofcourse be tested in safe environment before they can be deployed for money handling. Each piece of the Jringo's GRC4001 roadmap could be unit tested. That is why a peer review is necessary. Neither YOU not I can write a perfect code (or design). I doubt that. The history and recent actions speak otherwise. I agree. This is very much my view on the matter of rebasing. But that does not mean that it can't be done transparently. Thanks for understanding.
  18. 4 points
    Tomas Brod

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Now this is better specified. Filtering the raw xml by beacon list is i think a good idea. It reduces the amount of data to transfer and store. But let me quote Ravon/Marco: In context of verifying them against a project server. I understand and fully agree that what you wrote here will work. I understand that Somehow these "50 nodes" will be selected and only they would download the full stats files from the white-list URL filter them and build a super-majority on the "GRC stamped hash (of the filtered file)". Then this (filtered and processed) data would be shared to the rest of the NN and rest of the network, and they will trust because the GRChash matches, right? Now please explain how the 100 nodes set would use the resulting CRC32 of the range query to verify the filteret and GRChash stamped files? There filtered files will surely not match the project crc. Also you said that we have "500 NN nodes", 50 of them would download full and 100 would do range query, what the rest 350 nodes will be doing? Then a last question, do you have an idea how the "50 nodes" 100 and "500 NN nodes" is going to be chosen from all the nodes in the network? Why I suddenly understand and agree to your idea? Because if you read carefully my Dynamic Witness Participation proposal, you will notice that what you refer to as "50 nodes" almost exactly corresponds to my dynamic witness set.
  19. 4 points
    Marco Nilsson

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Currently we allocate magnitude evenly across projects. This has indeed shown to be an issue when a project runs out of work. The lucky ones who crunched the project are then rewarded fully until their RAC decays. This also means that in order to maximize profit you have to continuously chase the projects with the least competition. This goes against the spirit of the coin and I would sleep a little bit better if I could just pick the projects I'm interested in and be rewarded fairly. So, my proposal is that each project is allocated magnitude based on how much it has progressed since the last superblock. Then each researcher is allocated magnitude based on how much they helped that project progress. I know it's not perfect but in my opinion it is a more fair distribution than the current one. If a project stops handing out WUs then that project is not allocated any more magnitude. If you switch projects you get credited roughly the same as on your previous project since it's all about pushing the project forwards. This also removes the RAC buildup/decay. There are at least two flaws in my proposal: - WU hoarding - How do you determine project progression on new project? I see WU hoarding as a non issue in the long run, but the initial progression increase must be solved in some way. Right now I don't know how.
  20. 4 points
    huppdiwupp

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    What do you think will happen if the Gridcoin price goes up? (other than more money in terms of $ for miners and more interest in running BOINC) I agree with you on the use-case part. And I think one of these use-cases could be "advertise by burn" and "donate by burn". I think that is a way of creating a renvenue stream that would benefit the whole network. If you burn coins, the value represented by these coins is disributed equally over the remaining coins. Please explain how that is only benefitting the financially well-off! And please also explain how you think it would be possible to create a system (in the anonymous cryptospace) where you benefit the poor over the rich. Cryptocurrencies often introduce a certain amount of inflation to compensate active users for their efforts. To be more clear, we "print" money to pay the users. Blockchian security is the obvious one, Dash also pays their Masternodes for providing network infrastructure and we also pay for BOINC computations. The problem I see is that Gridcoin has huge expenses for rewarding BOINC computations that are not directly beneficial to the currency network itself. That means we additionaly have to pay for all the other things regular cryptocurrencies pay for. That makes it hard to compete, as we don't have a revenue stream right now. So how can this be sustainable in the long term without revenue ? The only way I see is by a ever growing userbase investing money in the system. (please note that currencies with a fixed amount of coins like nxt or nem are different in my opinion but where should the coins for BOINC rewards then come from?) Really? Maybe the DPoS marketing has fooled you on this one. Sorry but I think that comparison is just plain wrong. In a representative democracy every citizen (that is allowed to vote) has one vote that is weighted equally. In DPoS each share/coin has one vote that is weighted equally. If you hold 1000 coins, you have 1000 votes. Whate do you call a system of government where the citizens have a vote weight equally to their savings account? The crypto space is rather capitalistisc. With bitcoin the one with the most hashing power is in charge (and that is expensive) and with PoS the one with the highest investment holds the most power. I don't see a way to change that without proven identities. I would rather say they are very similar to each other. In DPoS you could simply become a witness by voting for yourself if you hold enough coins/shares. That would be exactly the same as creating a masternode. DPoS handles minority shareholders (in the sense of having fewer coins than the masternode/Witness threshold) better. Alot of individuals with a small balance could simply vote for their own witness. But this could be mirrored in a Masternode system by setting up masternode pools. So I would say the government structure of the two systems is not that different at all. Saying one is democratic and the other one oligarchic is unfair and wrong. So lets stick to the facts and try to keep an objective view on the matters at hand. I am not completely against a switch to graphene as a code base but I personaly tend towards something like Dash. We should also think about the requirements of gridcoin. Do we really want/need to compete with all these advanced cryptocurrencies like Ethereum, Nem, BTS, NXT/ARDOR? (and deal with stuff like hardforks for bailing out money because someone wrote a bad smart contract) I think gridcoin should focus on the niche of compensating BOINC computations for now.
  21. 4 points
    iFoggz

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Hello all, I was asked to make a reply to the current proposal of Rob. As an active developer I have been challenged among other developers over various bugs and problems that came about in the current Gridcoin client. All were unforeseen IMO. I personally am more attracted to Robs proposal for many reasons. I understand a lot of people don't like change but there is change ahead whether it is this proposal or 4.0 proposal. In my opinion a single proposal should never be the only answer and the community should be exposed to at least two proposals before moving ahead. With this proposal I'll let you know more of the CPID Assignment System that will be used in this proposal. The system I will be implementing will no longer require public or private keys anymore. This is a key point that has caused trouble for the community and this eliminates the need for deletion of CPIDs aka as currently called in the current system as "beacons". Over the time I been in Gridcoin development the key parts of code that I took part in the beginning were fixing the beacon issues that caused various problems. I've learned a lot from these issues and made solutions and also learned so much about the current system in place. With this knowledge I've moved ahead with this proposal (in mind) and made a proposed way for the CPID Assignment System (as Rob has mentioned) so that if this proposal is agreed upon I'll be prepared to make a well thought out system. This system does take a little of brods idea with boinc accounts but goes way beyond this and in another direction to conform to a system that can scale easily in the future and make the task easier for the users of the Gridcoin cryptocurrency wallet. I've taken extra steps as well to make it so that replay attacks will not be possible for CPID registration. Also the system prevents a malicious user who does not own the CPID from registering your CPID. These were some of the concerns of brought about quite some time ago. This system also allows for a user to update their own CPID registration if need be as well. This system does not have a team requirement proposed within it. It will be completely scale-able to what the network/users needs. The wallet/neural nodes will guarantee that the user registering their CPID is in fact the owner. If a user lost their wallet to a failed hard drive and did not have a backup they can easily update the registration with the new wallet information for payments and not worry about beacon deletions and simply just lose the coins they had (Backups are a much needed process all users should par take in -- I can't stress that enough). The newest registration is the accepted and used as the correct registration after verification that it is accepted and verified. If a user does not want to attach all projects to the same CPID they don't have to with this system at all. This in fact can be useful for a user who does not want to attach all projects to one machine just to maintain the same external CPID and they don't need to use a project manager either. This also allows a user to also have the option of not running the wallet on a machine that has boinc much like a PI, etc and still register the CPIDs. I've drawn up the system frame work and am here for anyone who has concerns or thinks of security concerns that could or need to be addressed. I'm also all ears if anyone has any suggestions for features. I've kept this simple and sweet but if you have questions do ask and I'll address them as I can. You can either reply here or direct message me here or email me eastendmumbles@gmail.com and even in slack if you wish. I'll get back to you as soon as possible. There are lots of reasons I'm in support of this proposal. The dash code base in decent from what I've seen so far plus evolved and I've made it a request that Gridcoin code is kept separate from the code base as much as possible so in future if there are any improvements to dash or security updates we can easily apply them to the wallet and keep up with the times. The current wallet is pretty outdated and I believe this is a positive step for Gridcoin as well as many more. I'm happy and confident in the role I will be playing in this proposal and the direction. I'm also happy with the daily superblock payments to all researchers so new users will not have to worry or wonder if they will stake in time to receive there reward. The new system will also reduce the chances of the forks we have been having and address many issues. I'd get into more detail but it is time to put the kids to bed. (Yes i'm a full-time dad and manage to find time to work to keep the community happy :)) My only intention is to better the future for the Gridcoin community. Best regards, Paul P.S. forgive me for any typos if there are any. Also if you have any concerns about this proposal do bring them up!
  22. 4 points
    C.M

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Forum polls are not superior to client polls, the exploit you talk of is simply deleting the poll - if the poll doesn't get deleted then there's no reason not to use the voting mechanism. Forum polls can be easily manipulated with sock puppet accounts - anyone could create 100 accounts to force the vote outcome, besides 100 users is a tiny portion of the Gridcoin network - whilst the nodes online may be in the lower 4 figure range, there are approx 13,852 users in the team (https://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/team/detail/118094994/overview), 2,863 /r/gridcoin subreddit subscribers, 431 members in Slack & 676 users in Telegram. 100 users voting in a poll is simply not grounds for claiming network consensus on any matter in the GRC network. There are still problems with the poll you created within the client: It's biased, it mentions only your proposal and maintaining the current code base as an alternative. There are many alternative codebase proposals which you have omitted intentionally. 1 month duration is insufficient - the precedent set with the POSv3 & Fixed Block polls were 2-3 month poll duration lengths for substantial development proposals. One could be away for longer than one month, or miss your announcement entirely due to the lack of community involvement. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) I doubt that upon hearing the use of invalid terminology they would approve, it doesn't involve machine learning nor actual neural networks and in its current state relies on a centralized statistics proxy. So our two individual votes on this matter are compared to the entire network, yet your proposal only needs 100 to vote in a poll? Lol.. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) If the minimum quantity of GRC to run a masternode is 400k, then we'd have approx 180 eligible addresses - how many of them will actually run a full masternode? Not likely. https://gridcoinstats.eu/address How can you claim your simulations are 'very very accurate' when they aren't open source nor public? You cannot claim speculation as fact. So the cost to attack the network would be 91*400k = 36 million GRC. There already exists an user 'philld' who owns 55m+ GRC and is not a known entity. https://gridcoinstats.eu/cpid/9ce6f19e20f69790601c9bf9c0b03928 @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Given the multiple recent exploits against your homebrew consensus/hashing mechanisms within the Gridcoin network, perhaps it's not wise to create a new hashing algorithm from scratch given you're not a cryptographer? @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Perhaps a problem the community is facing is the lack of advantages/disadvantages that masternodes have in your documentation, compared to the adv/dis-adv of using alternative codebases? From your documentation, there is no evidence of investigating codebases outwith Dash. @Quez Perhaps there would be a marketing advantage to inheriting some of the existing technology name recognition, however out of ETH/Dash/Graphene, the Graphene token communities (BTS/Steem/Peerplays/Golos/...) would be far friendlier to us inheriting their codebase. I'd imagine that inheriting the latest Dash or ETH codebase and becoming their competitors (especially with zero sharedrop onto ETH/DASH holders) would be met with hostility and a greater likelihood of malicious attack (of which would actually follow through in performing said attacks, rather than just publicly expose issues). Graphene is a toolkit, it is intended for creating new graphene based cryptocurrencies where as ETH and Dash are not intended for this functionality (however it's entirely possible). @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) 'Researching' just the 'top 20 cryptocurrencies' for viable alternative codebases is not appropriate; a large market cap is not an indication of superior technology. @huppdiwupp 1. Graphene witnesses & committee members only need to have funds to register their intent to become a witness or committee member. You do require an investment in witness hardware & potentially redundant servers in case of downtime, however this is far less than a masternode investment. Witnesses are likely to be the most trusted individuals in the community. 2. Same privacy concerns can be made for masternodes, pos and other algorithms - they all trust anonymous entities in maintaining their network. It's likely that non anonymous witnesses would be voted in faster than anonymous individuals, however a large quantity of Gridcoin devs/members maintain personas/aliases instead of using their real identities (there's no team page with identities on the gridcoin website). 3. Similar to how you can change the quantity of possible masternodes via changing the leasing fee (larger leasing fee the less masternodes), it's fairly trivial to change the quantity of witnesses in a graphene network. Steem has 50, BTS has 25, we could have a few or many - a design decision which can be altered by the committee at a later time (unless it requires a hardfork - needs clarification in this area). @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) To be fair, the vulnerabilities were created by you in the first place (let's put email data plaintext in the blockchain, great idea haha!), they had weaponized exploits created by multiple third party entities (some of whom you disregarded their communications - not very 'CTO' like behaviour) and they (the weaponized exploits) were never utilized past the 8 blocks generated over the 1m block period. Thankfully the Gridcoin network survived past this point, but any skript kiddie could have generated 10k blocks sequential blocks for a week or two. Thomas may have been a dick in weaponizing the exploit, but he stood up and solved multiple vulnerabilities in the gridcoin network which he and others identified. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) 3 users in an email chain, not much community outreach effort on your part. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Stop trying to make this a Rob vs Brod scenario, it's simply not reality. Whilst there are multiple proposals to improve the current gridcoin network systems, there are also multiple codebase migration proposals of which support is not split between two groups. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) Generating a snapshot from the GRC network and issuing a sharedrop via private key import is fairly trivial for Graphene networks, the process is likely very similar for both Eth and Dash, assuming you intend to import private keys instead of being a centralized issuer middleman again? @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) If your lack of energy applies to porting to Eth, then surely it applies to your Dash proposal thus it's DOA ? It was only last week where you were complaining that you were planning to entirely quit and that if future versions of GRC struggled you'd try to perform an aggressive takeover - are you going to stick around for the long term given this recent incident? Would it be alright if I share the email snippet in question?
  23. 4 points
    nateonthenet

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    I have a lot of concerns about this proposal still, but this list isn't really a good objection. To start, the problem with the team requirement is the by-extension problem that every person participating in Gridcoin currently downloads the project statistics periodically from BOINC project sites. These are not small files and we are already treading perilously close to DDOSing the project servers as it is. Any large influx of users is going to have a detrimental effect on project servers because we don't really have a good way to avoid the DDOS effect (like reddit or slashdot effect) at the moment. There are at least 10% of the coins currently for sale on various exchanges. 14 million+ on each of Bittrex and Poloniex, minimally, plus more on others. Granted, any serious buying will immediately jack the price up prohibitively high, but the liquidity situation is worse with a lot of other coins. He's probably basing it on a minimum seat price of 50,000 coins, which he already said is a possibility, to be fair. However, this I definitely agree with -- this seat proposal completely GUTS ordinary voting for ordinary users. I really wish there was a way to make "voting" still completely democratic in this proposal, not lock it up worse than it is with a minority of large shareholders. And I do agree with this as well. Very out-of-left-field authoritarian when it was starting to feel like there was finally solid progress being made in an organic fashion. That said, it's not a reason in itself to reject the proposal, but it's important to remind people that coins can and do fork when competing visions with actual technical skill behind them are butting heads...
  24. 4 points
    TheCharlatan

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    If this is the proposal, it seems like there won't be an "investor" anymore. Also, it opens up the blockchain directly for attacks from manipulating BOINC servers. Currently you can only give yourself a higher magnitude and more payout, but if you include BOINC project stats directly into the mining/block creation process, you will leave the door open for this kind of attack vector to completely disrupt the block creation process. If gridcoin were to be a success and the financial incentive for such an attack would rise, the likelihood of this occuring is too high in my opinion, since every BOINC server would be a single point of failure. I strongly believe, that no BOINC data should be used to decide who creates the next block. This process is just too insecure to have a crypto-currency rely on it. I believe this was noticed over the years (with several successful attacks executed) and should really not be an option anymore. Stats should only be used to determine the mint.
  25. 4 points
    Gridie

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Rob: Thank you for all of your efforts regarding the Gridcoin blockchain. I have a few questions, How would implementing all of these proposed changes at once be preferable over doing them piecemeal? I see the Masternode idea as a step backwards creating a more centralized system, I.E. one where significant resources are required to participate and the only way to benefit is with having an economy of scale. What are your thoughts on this? If the credit delta idea is to be implemented, how would this change the payout mechanism and the payouts rewarded? Please provide an example using 4,000 GRC and a 75 magnitude under current system. Regarding the voting mechanism, I think that the balance+magnitude method of share determination allows for those who hold a great deal of coins or magnitude to be unfairly represented. Usually that would make sense to allow for those who have the most to lose have the most say. However in this case, voting in this manner might alienate the rest of us in this community. I would propose that the poll be redone based on the CPIDcount or ParticpantCount to have an accurate view of what each stakeholder considers to be the correct course of action. I will use the current poll regarding this subject as an example, did 4 voters with 250,000 magnitude+balance respond no and 1 voter with 18 million magnitude+balance respond yes? Is there a way to determine this? If this technology is suppose to be innovative, should it not act in an innovative way? (I.E. not like the current system that is prone to abuse by those with higher resource access.) Thoughts? I just staked a block with 1.5 difficulty for the first time. (Usually this would crash my wallet). I feel a sense of pride helping to secure the network and it feels even better to be rewarded for it. In contrast, I spent months downloading the Ethereum block chain and received nothing but a full HDD. How can I continue to help without having to spend ~4,000 - 16,000 USD? In addition, could you please provide an amortization schedule of the return on investment on the Masternode idea? I agree that taking 661MBs of physical memory to run the wallet is absurd. How would your proposal address this? Final Thought: As a influential individual in the Gridcoin community please increase the visibility of this proposal by posting this discussion on Steemit, where many Gridcoin stakeholders go for information. Best Regards, Prescott
  26. 4 points
    jringo

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    How will this affect superblock size? Please explain. Are we not open-source development? Would appreciate non-biased phrasing in the client poll. = ) How does iFoggz proposed association solution compare to CM's and Brod's? ------------- Personally, I am here for Proof of Research -- a blockchain owned by those who contribute to a distributed computing network which focuses on science, technology, and data analysis. A blockchain in which at least half of the blocks are made by those who contribute to this distributed computing network. Masternodes seem to contradict the original purpose of Gridcoin. It seems to operate in a way that would greatly benefit extremely early adopters and financially well off entities, while limiting access for new users and those who contribute processing power to the network. Investors are great, but should they own the blockchain? I feel like I'm missing something. Am I missing something? Again, I am here to see those who contribute to the distributed computing network benefit the most and hold the most power. In other words, if I were a large scale research facility, would I make blocks based on the computational power I contribute to BOINC and would my contributions to BOINC grant me a seat on the voting board, weighted based on my contributions relative to other contributors? Or would I have to allocate tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of my already tight budget in order to "earn" my position on the voting board? (It currently costs USD $585,000 to lease a DASH masternode). How do masternodes seek to advance the primary goal of Gridcoin? Do masternodes limit the potential of a well financed entity buying control of Gridcoin while contributing nothing to the computing network? In its current state and presentation I would support the "piecemeal" improvements, but I look forward to being enlightened. As a side note, the name "Neural Network" is misleading and I think it ought to go. Some suggestions: Data Storage Network DSN Data Retrieval Network DRN Data Collection Network DCN Research Statistics Network RSN Research Distribution Network RDN
  27. 3 points
    Should we Re-Base Gridcoin using Rob Halfords proposal, or should we stay with current codebase and fix it using Piecemeal/Brod proposals? QUICK LINKS: Minimum Escrow Requirement Poll: GRIDCOIN III BLOCK DISTRIBUTION POLL: All, From a high level I've been testing cryptocurrency technologies in my lab over the last few months, on an information gathering campaign, and creating some internal mockups and doing budget expirimentation and looking for a way to break through the scalability barriers we have experienced in the Gridcoin client. Finally, I have come to a better understanding of what I believe will actually work in production- and I did not want to finish writing a proposal until that testing was completed and it is now complete. I would like to post a high level proposal to rebase Gridcoin for the future. The intent here is to hold a public vote to see how much acceptance we have with this idea. Specifically, what percent of the community backs This idea VS. going with other piecemeal solutions (those include fixing the current codebase, implementing Tomas Brod's proposals, and in general merging all of bitcoins security commits into the current existing codebase and then maintaining it). So please, read this, and then look for a Poll that I create that will seek to understand the backing level of : Either going with this particular Rebase, or going with Piecemeal fixes+Brods proposals. (Ill come back and edit this with a POLL link later). I have had discussions with Denravonska (our lead dev) (I consider myself CTO for now, and him the lead dev), and iFoggz, CM, and Quez regarding this idea. I checked the viability of this proposal from an IT standpoint and did the due dilligence in the background. I have enough IT support from our back-end team committed that I know we can actually execute this plan if the community wants it. The breakdown is: Rob Halford (me) will push the core, Denravonska (Marco) will push the TCD system, and iFoggz will push the CPID associator system. We think we can do this in 1 quarter. So therefore time is of the essence for us to decide what path we are going. If everyone is on board, this could be the future of Gridcoin delivered by March 2018! Please see the PDF here: http://gridcoin.us/gridcoinnew/dev/GridcoinIII_NonTechnical_Proposal.pdf Warm Regards, Rob
  28. 3 points
    Сегодня позволю себе задать очень простой вопрос. А что конкретно делает вас уникальными и в силу каких причин вы считаете, что ваша платформа лучше, чем другие платформы для ставок? Я думаю, мы все хотим знать об этом, потому что хотим быть уверенными в том, что мы на правильном проекте
  29. 3 points
    Yuliya Matscykh

    Революционная ICO

    Похоже, это просто какая-то шутка, вам так не кажется?
  30. 3 points
    The whitelist has been renewed. Next time will be in May (180 days till beacons decay), already noted in my calendar. If there are no objections, Duchamp Sourcefinder will be added tomorrow. Happy Crunching! Quez
  31. 3 points
    archer

    Революционная ICO

    Революционное тип потому что видео и никакого текста? Бред слегка
  32. 3 points
    Gridcoin 4.0-2018 Roadmap Progress Report #3 https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@jringo/gridcoin-research-4-0-2018-roadmap-progress-report-3
  33. 3 points
    Very simple explanation of what's wrong with Gridcoin PoS in its current state. https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@jringo/the-stake-weight-problem-what-on-earth-do-we-keep-talking-about-simplified -------------------------- I hope to explain in the simplest terms a problem with the Gridcoin Proof of Stake system which has encouraged several proposals to be developed and presented. I do not intend to talk about the proposed solutions. It should be noted that this is a problem that plagues multiple blockchains and does not present any immediate security issues, however it is still a known issue that must be fixed. Definition: The Stake Weight Problem is the problem presented when a Proof of Stake system does not encourage entities to keep their coins connected to the network. Explanation: Bitcoin is a peer to peer network which compiles blocks through a process known as Proof of Work. The details are not important for this discussion, but in general, the more processing power working on building blocks, the stronger and more secure the network. There are benefits and drawbacks to a Proof of Work system. The drawbacks inspired the creation of a protocol known as Proof of Stake. In general, a Proof of Stake system uses the balance, or stake, of a node to compile a block and add it to the blockchain. We can surmise, accurately, that the more stake actively working on building blocks, the stronger and more secure the network. There are benefits and drawbacks to a Proof of Stake system, some of which are similar to Proof of Work systems and others which are unique. For this discussion, we will be focusing on one: In order to encourage nodes to participate in any blockchain system, rewards are distributed to the node which successfully compiles a block and adds it to the blockchain. The cost to a node for building a block in a Proof of Work system is the investment cost of hardware, the depreciation incurred by continuous operation of this hardware, and the electricity consumed by the operation of this hardware. The cost to a node for building a block for a Proof of Stake system, such as Gridcoin, is the time, hardware requirements, electricity required, and security issues involved with leaving a wallet with a balance connected to the network. Needless to say, the costs of a Proof of Stake system are much lower than those in a Proof of Work system, however they still exist. It is understandable that, given the opportunity, an entity would rather receive a reward without exposing itself to the cost of staking, or creating, a block. Currently, this is exactly how Gridcoin's reward mechanism works. Each coin in Gridcoin is guaranteed 1.5% interest per year whether it is working on creating blocks for the blockchain or sitting in a wallet not connected to the network. Beyond that, the reward for staking a block is equal to the fees collected from the transactions compiled in that block. Without getting into details, trust me when I say that the reward is tiny. This means that an entity with Gridcoin can collect its 1.5% interest without contributing to the creation or maintenance of the blockchain. We cannot blame entities which do this as it is the fault of the system. What we can do is change the system. A blockchain that suffers from the stake weight problem does not have a significant portion of its balance held on active nodes. This presents issues which I do not intend to get into for this article. In short, a blockchain with low stake weight is less secure than a blockchain with high stake weight. I hope that helped introduce a few of you to a major problem present in many Proof of Stake blockchains, Gridcoin being no exception. If you want to know more, do some research and ask the community! Thanks to @barton26 for proofreading this article.
  34. 3 points
    jamescowens

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Rob, Your point is exactly right about nodes that are outbound connection only. However, there are some people (me included) that know what we are doing, set up the appropriate forwarding and configure "listen=1" in the configuration file to create a full node, and pay for high bandwidth service. I think the node should simply be required to be a full node (i.e. reachable externally - allow inboard connections), with the appropriate escrow, rather than to effectively require someone to use a hosting service. My guess is that there are a number of enthusiasts that fall into this category. You risk overcommercializing the nodes with a hard and fast fixed IP hosting service requirement. By the way the average number of inboard connections is not in the hundreds, I think, unless the Dash Masternodes is a fully enmeshed network. For example, my GRC node currently has 36 connections (8 outbound and 28 inbound), while my Bitcoin Core client has 78 connections (8 outbound and 70 inbound). Jim
  35. 3 points
    jringo

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    @nateonthenet I think it is important to keep in mind that a fork as we know and have seen in the past (with other coins, not Gridcoin) is not the only split that can occur. I do see your point about developers supporting the developments that are most supported by developers, I happen to say this all the time when we talk about a switch to graphene. "I do not know any developer that would code the switch." However, no one has ever created a legitimate poll regarding a switch to graphene. The conversation is ongoing, and I respect @C.M for his restraint as he continues to try to convince us that graphene is the best path forward and as we all continue to listen, learn, and observe. In the meanwhile, no one has tried to stop alternative improvements that can be implemented with relative pace as we explore other options. I have nothing against continuing to discuss masternodes and I am always open to being convinced one way or another, but as @shu said, there has already been multiple positive polls regarding the proposed updates put forward and developed by the community. Having a main, albeit sporadic, dev push masternode code in the face of developers will keep them away from other improvements that can be put in place with pace while we discuss masternodes -- with smaller improvements, there will not be a need to audit an entirely new system. It is a way to ensure one path as opposed to another without any conversation. It happens in politics all the time.
  36. 3 points
    jringo

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    I would recommending having a listen to this interview, and to watch if you can -- some interesting comments in the chat. There is a lot of good information in the interview. I will write my thoughts as I have them while listening so you can see my thought process. I will edit them mostly for typos and clarity -- so excuse me if I have a tone with a few of them. This will be my second time listening to this so these are not completely raw thoughts. -- "A portion of our transaction fees go to something other than mining." Afterwards, masternodes decide how to distribute these funds. -- We can do this, but without masternodes making the decisions about fund allocation. I can think of a few ways off the top of my head. Give me some time to make sure they seem like they could work and to make them presentable = ). I hope to have something released for community feedback by/around January 15th. -- "...anyone who wants to run one of these networks." -- We don't want to run a network, we want the network to run. It's a mentality. -- There is something to say about centralization speeding production, but it comes with a very large risk. Once you centralize at the core level, it is nearly impossible to decentralize. If you are centralized, you can be targeted. Governments, if they turn against anonymous networks, might target Dash masternodes, which are already legal unknowns. Consider Ancient Rome: before emperors, Rome was run by a senate. Rome was a republic -- decentralized/representative -- and would appoint a "Dictator" for times where the need for rapid production and reaction allowed by centralized control presented itself: mostly for wars or for the completion of hyper-specific tasks. After the war, or after the task was completed, or after a set length of time, the dictator was removed from power. Eventually, the system fell into complete centralization and power was given to something we call "Emperor." Get started with history! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator -- It can be argued that it failed because they had a human system based solely on trust and not an open source algorithm based mostly on code. -- They are looking into building ASICs for their masternodes -- further centralization. -- Instant send sounds like an amazing mechanism, but it is not yet secure and its utility will undoubtedly be replicated through other mechanisms -- the ability to transact without waiting is necessary for all financial tools. -- Private Send seems pretty neat. If I understand correctly, an auditor can still identify a buyer with confidence, however it seems like they will need more than just the transaction data to confirm what they want to confirm. "We believe that this actor is bad. If they are one of the actors in this private send jumble, the probability that our belief is accurate increases." Something like that might be able to hold in a court of law? ... it sounds sort of like a warrant. -- "Does Dash Core have centralized control over the Dash network?" -- This question is never answered. There are some good statements about centralization when needed, but that's what they are: general statements one would expect from a politician, not a developer. See my comments about Rome above. There are other ways to implement temporary centralization to drive hyper-specific goal completion. I have several ideas. Give me some time to put them together and make them presentable = ). I hope to have theory and skeleton outlines regarding implementation for Gridcoin released for community feedback by/around January 31st. -- "... we could turn off a few features." "Very quickly... someone creates a new version of the network." Very quickly create a new version of the network?! Come now. Someone with more knowledge please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like it would take a lot of work and time to fix, fork, and rewind a network which was just corrupted by a rogue actor. Not to mention the loss of trust in the protocols and operation structures. -- Dash proposals are all about marketing and are generally... none are about development. Development is centralized. https://dashvotetracker.com/ https://www.dashcentral.org/budget -- Masternodes can turn off keys? Someone with more knowledge clarify this please. -- "Right now features like Instant Send are still maturing." "We need to reach a certain comfort level that these features have been tested enough...." I agree! Let's wait until they build the functions into the code and then take another look at the code! -- "We are not abusing that power and we have no plans to." Neat, but let's not rely on the indefinite benevolence of leaders. Let's think long term. Once all the amazing and benevolent leaders of organizations pass into the great unknown, can the system be corrupted? -- "We thought of use-case and designed for the use-case." He says this like it's ground-breaking. That's literally how Bitcoin was designed, yes? It's heuristic. You're supposed to start with and design off of absolute proofs or theory, not use-cases. Like Ouroboros. -- "There are a lot of different components that need to be built from scratch." Let them build them! Then let's look at a potential switch. -- "Let's. Do. It. Right." Yes. Yes. Yes. -- I agree with the microtransaction economy thought. That's pie in the sky dreaming for the next couple decades. Can't wait! After this they talk about stuff that's not necessarily relevant to Gridcoin... unless we actually go back to PoW, which I really hope we don't. After Thoughts: - The danger of Dash which I'm talking about are economic, political, and regarding the incomplete and insecure mechanisms that the proposal of this thread seeks to bring to Gridcoin. For cryptographic security, until I learn more, I deffer to the opinions of the developers who have earned the trust and respect of the community through their actions and products (never just their words). - Instant payments failed and the centralized team stopped services. Good for this security flaw scenario, bad in principal, particularly long term. - To me, masternodes sound like a bank and a human/trust-based-government in one entity. That is something that even the most hard core capitalists think is dangerous. They have thought this since the development of capitalist theory and the implementation of capitalism. - Maybe Masternodes will be the way to go, but I vote that we let them prove it first while also waiting to see what else people come up with to solve these problems. In the meanwhile, let's prove to all the people dedicated to science and open and accessible data analysis that we are here for them: let's work on BOINC and how we can structure our operation around our ethos. Disclaimer: I believe that the price of Dash is likely to skyrocket over the next 6-12 months (it may even have the potential to directly compete with BTC), but that doesn't mean it is right for Gridcoin at this time. There is a difference between being multi-billion dollar secure (which Dash admits they are not) and having groundbreaking tech. Most groundbreaking tech will be in smaller marketcap coins. Once those coins reach a billion dollar marketcap, their security will begin to be seriously tested. Just like what happened with Dash and the Instant Send mechanism.
  37. 3 points
    Вот уже за 11К перешагнул биток, что Вы можете предложить, А?
  38. 3 points
    jringo

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    @jamescowens Incredible post. Thank you for your insight and for taking the time. The main point I think that needs to be made against masternodes is as follows: Why switch to untested solutions for incredibly complex problems, as you described. Blockchain technology is not yet 10 years old, yet we want to move away from the only hundred billion dollar secure protocols? This does not make sense to me. Second to that: There are serious failings of masternodes. Primarily, they present the opportunity to become a combination of the fiat banking system and the government structures which inspired the creation of blockchain technology in the first place. Why do we want to implement a potentially more efficient version of the system which blockchain tech is intended to disrupt? Why not continue with the protocol which is known, PoS, and which has known and studied flaws: centralization based on wealth. Centralization based on wealth is present in every single economic system in western society (and most others too), so we do not need to work to destroy that. Other, smarter people will do that for us. In fact, they are developing solutions at an unbelievable pace. So again, why not focus on the BOINC aspect of Gridcoin by fixing the vote weight situation you describe along with several other issues while maintaining the protocols and power structures we know to be more or less secure and stable. Additionally, mastersnodes will solve some problems, but with very risky potentials. All these problems can be solved through alternative means which are much less risky. Let's do the less risky solutions and wait for a year to see what is developed. Ouroboros is one protocol that is doing wonders when it comes to solving the wealth distribution problem regarding block creation. There are dozens more in development. This is also posted on steemit.
  39. 3 points
    Earl

    Starter Coins for Beginners

    HARRY000 SLaxRfNStwGanDqJf3i8sBcXmBvqjwawET DREAMON S4FT6EMcvq6Lfst9aAxAtVaXEc8H9X2abT FABOUNET SGEw3wSNbw2BY6xBbvP7M4jPQUnpRw56JB BOLT_MINER SCD3XfvUWkmtpjg2qSzQLoXHoPKLn4Ki4W SHADOWOFLIGHT SCVtv31oeqcTfLwrmiFKdrTZfKbmRuD8KD Sent you all some GRC. Cheers.
  40. 3 points
    jringo

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    That's the beauty of open-source. I bet we can get at least a few of them back by showing through our actions that we are here for the right reasons and will support their work as a community. And I'm certain we can get dozens, if not hundreds of brilliant, energetic, and passionate coders and front-enders on board to push a new wave of BOINC development into being. @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) ------------------------ This thread is getting very long, and this is a very long response, so to help people follow along I will link to huppdiwupp's original post, then to my response, then to huppdiwupp's response to my response: Original Post My Response Huppdiwupp's Response @huppdiwupp This is an incredibly complex question. I will do my best to explain how I see the value of Gridcoin and how that translates into price. I am going to start at the beginning, and I know you know a lot of what I'm going to say, but bear with me as I think this is an incredibly important part of the discussion regarding masternodes and the future of Gridcoin in general. Also, forgive me if I come off as condescending at times, I do not mean to. I have a didactic way of speaking which gets me into trouble more often than I'd like =). I respect everyone here and especially everyone with the courage to put themselves and their ideas out there, even if I don't agree with a particular idea. First, I'd like to explore where I think blockchain/Gridcoin value comes from: A blockchain is a set of code that guarantees an open ledger of information. Most contemporary blockchains also contain an incentive structure meant to encourage individuals and entities to help create and secure the open ledger of information. This incentive structure is not necessary for a blockchain to operate, however it has become a critical tool with regards to how blockchain tech is disrupting and improving age old economic and value systems and structures. As with anything that deals with money, it has also been abused for personal profit. So, it can be said that a coin created by securing an open ledger of information represents the value a collection of people attribute to the information in that ledger. Another word for "a collection of people" is "society". Just as a physical resource holds an exchange value equal to its perceived worth in a society, a coin minted by a blockchain holds an exchange value equal to a society's perceived worth of the data in the blockchain which minted the coin. A second way a blockchain is given value is through utility. "What can I do with the data in this blockchain?" First, I think we will agree that all open-source blockchains hold the utility of decentralized trust in structural algorithms manifested in code instead of arbitrary networks of trust. Beyond that, Bitcoin, for example, holds the intended utility of the rapid and inexpensive exchange of representative resource (cash). Ethereum holds the intended utility of scaleable and automated execution of contracts. Gridcoin's utility is still largely undefined, however I think it is currently close to what I have seen called "certificate of origin". This is likely the wrong term, or at least not the best term, so in other words: The data in the Gridcoin distributed and open ledger of information is largely transaction data (for the time being). This is no different than the data in the Bitcoin blockchain and holds the same utility and value potential as Bitcoin. The data which is unique to the Gridcoin blockchain is that which is found in Superblocks. Superblocks contain data related to Credits earned in the BOINC system. Credits are information meant to represent the value given to completed Work Units. Work Units are sets of data analyzed by processing power. Therefore, every Gridcoin can be said to represent, or originate from, a volume of processing power directed at the completion of Work Units. The value of a Gridcoin, it would follow, is the worth a society places on processing power directed at the completion of Work Units. This is not entirely accurate. Gridcoin is currently minted by two processes. The first process is the one I just described regarding completing work units. The second is the process of creating blocks, superblocks, and consensus on the blockchain. This process is also known as Securing the Blockchain. So, it would seem that the value of Gridcoin currently comes from three primary sources and one source connected to all open-source blockchains: Value Propositions: 1. The information contained in standard blocks. This is the ability to act as a rapid and inexpensive exchange of representative resource (cash). 2. The information contained in Superblocks. This is the ability to mint Gridcoin based on the volume of processing power directed at the completion of Work Units. 3. The creation of blocks, superblocks, and consensus on the blockchain. This is the ability of anyone to gather and verify the information in 1 and 2. Changing any of these three propositions changes the value of Gridcoin. Change is always necessary and often inevitable. The challenge is in determining how proposed changes affect these sources of value. If the ability to gather and verify and control the information in 1 and 2 is changed from "anyone" to "those with money" or "those who are voted in" or "those who wear blue shirts on Tuesdays", we must determine how the perceived value of Gridcoin might change. 4. The fourth source of value which is relevant to all open-source blockchains is the code that runs everything. As an aside, this is something I think is beautiful in blockchain tech. We as a society are beginning to give direct value to code, code anyone can read, understand, and learn from. And if code is just an idea made possible (particularly blockchain code), can we say that we are beginning to give direct value to ideas? I don't know, it sure would be neat. Anyway, moving on... To the question. If the price goes up, assuming honesty in the market, it would mean that society has given more value to one, some, or all of these propositions. Unfortunately, but understandably, this assumption of an honest market is flawed at best in the current cryptosphere. Let us not forget that when stocks were first created, they went through a very similar processes of abuse and regulation development, so in time, it is likely that this assumption will be made true. Now, if the price of GRC goes up, I think and am likely wrong on a few of these: 1. First, foremost, and most beneficial, any increase in price of GRC will likely encourage those holding GRC to risk committing more time to the development of Gridcoin: "If I am sitting on a million dollars, why shouldn't I quit my job and help ensure the security of this value while also developing something I believe in?" 2a. If the price of GRC increases because people are buying GRC as a tool to profit (buy low sell high), the value attributed to a specific volume of processing power will not change. *If I earn 5 GRC per 5GHz when the price of GRC is $1, and the price of GRC goes up to $5, I will earn 1 GRC per 5GHz. I will not earn more for my processing power. See #3 (below). Volatility and time are factors. * These values and units are just fillers to show the point. 2b. If the price of GRC increases because the perceived worth of processing power increases, it could be safe to say that you will earn more GRC/GHz, despite of #3 (below). Volatility and time are factors. 2c. If the price of GRC increases because people are buying GRC to create masternodes, the value attributed to GRC by value proposition #3 (above) will shift. The long term effects of this shift are unknown (masternodes are relatively new) and not even theorized in the proposal put forward by Rob, which is why I am very hesitant to support it. 2d. If the price of GRC increases because individuals and entities are buying GRC to help cause the first effect of this list to happen (a form of investment that may or may not be legally dubious), I think it is hard to say what will happen long term, but short term the same as 2a. The value of my GHz directed at completing WU will not change. 3. Any increase in price will bring more users to BOINC and Gridcoin. More users means more processing power directed at WU completion, awesome. Regarding earning more money for BOINCing: with our current system, this means a reduction of Magnitude for users across the board. This means everyone earns fewer GRC/GHz. But these GRC are worth more USD. But maybe I don't want USD. Or maybe I want more BTC -- how has that relationship changed? Because crypto markets are volatile, young, and because it is possible to use only a few Cryptos to live, and because you can convert only a few cryptos to usable cash, it is difficult to say with confidence how a change in price affects earnings. This is why things get complicated. -------- I agree with you for the most part, and I agree 100% with the shared value of burning GRC, however I think an "advertise by burn" funding structure does not coincide with the overall ethos of Gridcoin. It benefits those with financial support because they will be able to advertise their work while those without financial support will not. I fear any structure that might lead to the exclusion of those "without". I do not think it is a matter of developing a system that benefits the poor over the rich. I think it is a matter of developing and maintaining a system of equal opportunity. It is easy to cater to those with financial support without realizing that the structure developed excludes those without financial support. It happens in politics all the time. This is a fear of mine, and fear often leads to irrational decision making, so I am very open to being corrected here. ------ I think that over the next year we should focus on three major flaws of the current Gridcoin system. 1. Voting (the voting system, not data consensus) 2. Funding 3. Organization Regarding funding, one idea I've been mulling over is inspired by PINK. They call it sidestaking. Sidestaking Sidestaking is based on the idea that people are more likely to donate if: A. they never actually hold the money, meaning they never actually need to let go of the money B. the process is automatic Sidestaking is a mechanism that automatically distributes funds to a wide array of possible individuals, entities, and projects. This can be implemented in the staking rewards structures, research reward structure, transaction fees structures, and/or any fee structure. Sidestaking might present a fair and secure way to fund BOINC projects, Gridcoin marketing campaigns, bounty based developments, faucets, general research, charities and relief efforts, personal projects, and other endeavors. Fund distribution could be manual, automatic, static, dynamic, or a combination, and could be tied into the network and its economic requirements. Still lots to consider, but this is what I'm thinking as it stands. This would help development by helping fund bounty proposals and developers directly. Here is an example for each: 1. "Hello Gridcoin community! I have been thinking about a new way to do X / I have been thinking about a way to solve problem X. Here is what I have so far and I think it seems promising. Unfortunately, I do not have time/skill/desire to bring this idea to completion. I have set up a sidestaking address for the endeavor. You can find the requirements for the release of the funds in this contract. If you think it is something worth developing, you can automatically send a portion of your stake/BOINC rewards to ABC123 by using the sidestake tab in the GUI." At some point, if the idea is supported by the community, the bounty will be large enough to incentivize someone/a group to develop the idea. 2. "Hello Gridcoin community! I/we am/are a developer/s of Gridcoin. This is what we have done in the past. This is who we are. These are people we have worked with who can vouch for our character, work ethic, and intentions. Here are some threads that show you our development process. We would like to spend more time contributing to Gridcoin, but cannot afford to sacrifice our other sources of income. If you like our work and would like to support us, you can automatically send a portion of your stake/BOINC rewards to ABC123 by using the sidestake tab in the GUI. Here is the contract that defines how funds are released from the address." The Process (again, just some early thoughts): 1. A user/entity seeking funding verifies themselves in some way - IP address? True identification if they'd like? Some way that ensures that they can be removed from the system or punished should they break contracts or attempt to game the system. 2. The user/entity seeking funding then applies for a sidestaking address through a process, ideally automated -- similar to an automated whitelist/greylist. 3. Other users -- BOINCers and stakers -- can then direct their client to automatically allocate x% of their BOINC/stake rewards to any registered address or addresses they want. For example: I could direct 5% to the GRC foundation, 5% to BOINC project A, 5% to BOINC project B, 2% to faucet C, 10% to crowdfunding project D, 5% to bounty E, 5% to developer F, etc. This might create something like a marketplace of development, philanthropy, and education where those who create more value in the Gridcoin blockchain -- BOINCers and those who secure the blockchain -- choose the path of Gridcoin by allocating funds to different endeavors, endeavors which are able to convince users of their value. BOINC projects that more people like will receive more funds and might be able to gather more data and create more results. Proposed developments that more people like will receive more funds and will be more likely to be developed. People will also build reputation based on how they sidestake. Projects/endeavors/developers will be encouraged to educate the userbase (or hire someone to educate -- which in turn increases the userbase) in order to earn their sidestake funds. Philanthropy will become a regular talking point in the community along with education. Sidestaking is an open marketplace of ideas, masternodes is the wealthy making all decisions. ------ Broken, but what exists throughout the world already =). First, yes I agree that any PoS is pragmatically not a true democracy for the reason of more money = more power. But consider where that money came from. It came from securing the blockchain, which is the primary value proposition of most blockchains (compared with where money comes from in fiat systems -- "arbitrary law"). Not with Gridcoin! What if contributing to the primary purpose of Gridcoin (BOINCing/distributed data analysis) gives you power equal to or greater than contributing to securing the blockchain. In other words, 10 mag = 10 power while 10 GRC =7.5 power, or something. Assuming the problem of money = power is worked out (which in all honesty, this is how most systems created throughout history have operated and continue to operate, so to think that we must solve this legacy issue immediately might be self-defeating), this is how a DPoS could work, it is not how they all do or will work: In DPoS, as I understand it, an individual seeks to be one of the group of people who secures the blockchain, called Delegates. To do this, they must adhere to an "algorithmic constitution" of sorts which is ratified by the community and can be changed by the community. Delegates must also maintain a certain level of, let's call it "user support". Delegates are immediately and automatically removed from power if they break a law in the algorithmic constitution or if their user support drops below a certain level. If this happens, delegates will automatically be replaced by a delegate candidate on a waiting list. Users who do not wish to be delegates, or who do not wish to follow every little aspect of Gridcoin (which is a lot of people and understandably so), offer their power to a delegate candidate who has earned their trust. This is just like how many democracies have people elect representatives to make decisions for them -- a representative democracy. There are clearly flaws to this system, just like in all representative democracy systems past and present. Some of these flaws are very similar to those of masternode systems, just as oligarchy manages to corrupt contemporary democracies, however in masternode systems there is no way for the "littles" to team up against those who have enough resources to buy into the system. In other words, once you show that you have enough money to become a masternode, you are masternode for life or until the protocol is changed to require even more investment to maintain your power. In DPoS, you must follow a constitution ratified by everyone, and if you fail to serve your constituents best interests, you can be removed from power.
  41. 3 points
    Tomas Brod

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    CRC32 is not a cryptographic function and can not be used to verify the authenticity of a file. Attacker can create a spoofed stats xml file with the same CRC32 hash as the project servers easily. Then proactively inject this file into the NN and trick nodes into voting for it, because they won't be able to tell that the file was spoofed. There is a O(1) algorithm to generate CRC32 collisions (different file - same hash) in matter of (micro?)seconds. Second, even if nodes were sharing the ~300MiB stats file in a P2P fashion, they still need to contact the project server and retrieve the GZIP header using a range query. Granted that this response is much shorter (16 bytes vs 300MiB), but it is still and request to the server. Depending on the number of participants this number of requests might either DDoS the server to death or agitate the server admins against You for loading their servers beyond fair use.
  42. 3 points
    Tomas Brod

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    About that idea of sharing "neural" data among the nodes: Boinc servers provide the files on their web. They do not provide separate checksums for them. Only by a luck, the GZIP header contains CRC32 checksum of the data. This is a very weak hash algorithm. This is a acceptable algorithm for data consistency, but it lacks first and second pre-image resistance, therefore it is not a Cryptographic hash function and can't be used to prevent intentional data modification and tampering. "Neural" nodes can share the downloaded data among themselves, but they CAN'T tell if the data is authentic from the project servers. Therefore the shared data becomes useless. Granted, nodes can vote on the version of the data, but if a node obtained the data from insecure channel, how can it vouch and vote that his version of data is really the authentic one. If the issues are worked out, this could be a nice alternative. Maybe bit too complicate one, becouse you would have to implement the data sharing, which I see you already started working on, but maybe not in the best way. There is elaborate hash-key data sharing implemented into the core netcode of the client and it is reliably used to broadcast blocks and transactions. Maybe code buplication could by avoided by utilizing it. In DWP, I acknowledged this issue and took a different approach. Instead of reducing the set of nodes who download the data and then share it to rest, I reduced the set of nodes working on the "neural" superblock consensus in a deterministic and fair way. I will stop here to let Rob and Ravon (presumably the authors) to express their opinion to my issues. I do not say that this idea is bad. It is a interesting solution to the DDoS problem, but there are issues. I would love to hear ho Rob and Ravon can solve these issues.
  43. 3 points
    Tomas Brod

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Let's look at your registration system, @iFoggz Registration: While this is not strictly a security issue, it may not be comfortable for users to enter their boinc credentials into the wallet. When entering email address into the wallet made it publicly available on the blockchain, would users trust the wallet for not publishing their PASSWORD as well? We have talked about this in the hangout, and it was not taken easily. Boinc does not provide such field not api to modify it. Also BOINC maintainer (Mr. Anderson?) is strictly against storing any kind of cryptocurrency data on boinc servers. Me and CM have both thought about this challenge and incorporated solutions into our proposals. You are advised to read the wiki and maybe say how your idea differs from the already suggested and reason it. Also if you say hash, you must say what it is a has of. Hash is a cryptographic function that has unlimited input and fixed-width output that depends on the input and satisfies some rules. If it is unique hash (value/string/number/nonce), than it can't already exist. And if it does, the attacker can just create another that does not exist. The problem lies with reorganizing. If chain is reorganized and this transaction is removed, the client needs to reload the previous reg.trx. for this cpid. How is it going to find it? Maybe include the hash of previous registration transaction? Who "the network" will do this? Which subset of it? All nodes at the same time? If all the nodes, who receive the block/transaction will try to fetch the xml from the project server then the poor servers will die. What about nodes who are syncing from zero or old time back? If only subset of nodes, how to select this subset (DWP solves this in one way, graphene /masternodes in another)? How this subset is going to signal the rest of the network that the trx is valid or invalid? How to prevent forks? How you want to ensure that the hash is unique and can't be reused? Where is it going to be stored if not in the XML? I understand that this is not a final version. Mine started in a similar way and I was working with most of the problem that arose here.Your proposal looks very similar as the one of ToneMackay. I advise you to look at the wiki and improve your proposal. Edit: LINK TO THE WIKI
  44. 3 points
    Gridie

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    All: I am also interested in Frank0051's question. After reading the aforementioned threads, I think it is important to refocus on our goals of making the gridcoin blockchain more accessible to providers of research-resources. Would there be a way to make a BOINC project that would help alleviate some of the burden of our requests on project servers? Locking up of roughly a 4th (400,000 * 250 = 100 million) of the GRC in circulation would most likely increase the price per GRC (due mostly to signaling) and the largest stakeholders would benefit the most. If we were to accept Masternodes it might be correct for the major stakeholders to take/mitigate the liquidity risk. I would suggest that the escrow amount be in the form of a loan (interest bearing payable from Masternode earnings) of GRC from the major stakeholders to a potential Masternode. This way they cannot cash out until their loan has matured, reinforcing the long-term commitment to the overall goal of Gridcoin. This would of course require the integration of a smart contract code into the current build in order to actually implement the transition as described above. So maybe piecemeal smart contracts in first? I believe that this would actually give us the stability and functionality needed to become a better block chain and because it would be self-funded expansion we would create "organic" growth. This might give faith to the community that it is not focused on profiting for personal gain. As profit for personal gain is not the intention or spirit of the distributed research-resource provider community. Profit is important and should be considered, but not before the working capital is in place. Our working capital is the GRC blockchain and our collective profit would be the realization of our goals - a major one being to distribute gridcoin to everyone that gives resources to BOINC projects. Rewarding the whole BOINC sphere would most likely create orphan coins that are not "owned" by anyone. I would suggest that we find a way to have these balances accounted for and given to the respective projects (unless claimed) in order to compensate them for our demands on their systems. Thoughts? Can we re-imagine "Masternodes" for a second? What if these entities were entirely automated and not owned by anyone. The fees earned by them would need to be enough to rent the server. If we decided to do this, we would need to spend many more days and nights constructively destroying each others proposals, comments, and ideas. Feature Request: Can we include a "Bitcoin Days Destoryed" type of analytic tool that would allow anyone (probably most importantly the proof-of-you-have-done-something-for-the-network-or-BOINC-reward-mechcanism) to determine how many days it has been since the last time that coins have moved? We could aggregate this into a number that might help with consensus and the clear problem that was mentioned by Barton26 early about using a CPID-Count or Participation-Count based voting poll. It appears that I have described Proof-of-Stake. Thoughts? Finally: Can someone explain to me why we have a "speech" function in the advanced configuration tab? It seems very out of place and as far as I can tell is non-functional. Rob, thank you for your reply to my post. Paul, thank you for your post as well. C.M., I agree that a proposal vs proposal mindset is something we should avoid. At this point maybe the arguments and agreements of this thread should be summed. Best, Prescott
  45. 3 points
    jringo

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Convince me that this is true. Frankly, I do not believe you. You know the intent of the argument (which in all honesty was pretty clear). Do not mislead. We are all -- all 2000-2500 of us -- statistics nerds with varying degrees of experience in programing, development, marketing, funding, research, education, blockchain tech, and more, and we each bring our individual networks -- each as valuable as the next -- to the table. In other words, don't build yourself up too tall = ). These are not the major problems seen by most users of Gridcoin. However, they are problems. But: there are solutions to many of these which are far more beneficial than masternodes, as has been discussed among the community for over 6 months. I think that if our goal is encourage people to connect their IPP to BOINC, this is a bad idea and, again, this is not a Proof of Research protocol, or really any protocol at all. You seem to be confusing blockchain protocol with incentive structure. What would happen is anyone who is able right now would set up their masternode. Future masternodes would require at least several tens of thousands of dollars, or more likely several hundreds of thousands of dollars. It currently costs ~$585,000 USD to set up a DASH masternode and $30,000 USD to set up a PIVX node. I would like to see a report regarding economic and political ramifications of masternodes. Additionally, I would like to see a breakdown of how many masternodes are desirable, how we would target that number, and why. ----------------------------------- Regarding the community developed proposals which we have been discussing, exploring, and developing as a community for the past 6 months, I would direct interested parties to the following link: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@jringo/regarding-the-new-technology-rebase-poll-and-grc-4-0-2018-roadmap-proposals --------------------------------- Now. Who wants to chug some gravy?
  46. 3 points
    jringo

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Yes, but why the switch to Masternodes? We could go to an updated PoS codebase such as Ouroboros or even Graphene or EOS. I strongly believe we should stay away from Graphene for now (only because it is still relatively new), but I would still support a switch to Graphene over Masternodes. I would support a switch to Ouroboros over Graphene, Masternodes, and probably our current PoS system. Ouroboros formally defines Proof of Stake (the first protocol to do so) and was developed through a peer review process (also the first protocol to do so). That sounds like science to me! What you're proposing is based off of heuristic development and arbitrary trust -- two things that strike fear into the heart of almost everyone. I strongly disagree. Could you please share your complaint list and explain how the DASH base addresses these complaints? Your third reason is the same as your first reason = ). Define success please. It sounds like you view success as a rise in price. I believe that this must not be a priority of Gridcoin. If we focus on building something with utility, price will follow. If we focus on price, utility will die. Again, there are ways to encourage holding while improving the utility of Gridcoin. I see nothing in this proposal which will increase support for BOINC, adoption of Gridcoin/BOINC, and increased use of open publishing/open access distributed computing networks. ------------------ I would like to hear your thoughts on how governments and regulators might react to fully anonymous protocols. This question was first brought up by @C.M Could you please detail the differences between Dynamic Witness Participation and PoSE when it comes to voting on the TCD dataset to be collected from BOINC? Above all, please illustrate the "original vision" for Gridcoin which you mentioned on page 1 of this thread. Then please describe how Masternodes work to achieve this vision. I do not think there is any brainwashing going on, but perhaps the community has grown and evolved along with the vision, which is generally a good thing = ). @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin)
  47. 3 points
    TheCharlatan

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    There is no difficulty re-targeting algorithm that could keep up with the sudden hashrate changes an attacker could bring. Especially not if the attacker mines selfishly and then quickly releases his found blocks without other miners even noticing and being able to compete with him on the same level (as was done in a livenet attack as well). But lets go through a likely scenario for arguments sake and even disregard selfish mining. Someone is mining much faster than everyone else, finds a block with a low blocktime and therefore greatly increases the difficulty. Now two things can happen. He either stops mining and waits for the difficulty to decrease sufficiently again and then starts his attack again, with little cost to himself and potentially large disruption to everyone else, since the next block after his high diff block will take very long to be mined. Or, he makes use of that it is unexpected to iterate into higher nonces (as it was the case in pre V8 gridcoin and then successfully exploited). His modified miner would potentially be orders of magnitude faster than any built-in miner of gridcoin and able to outperform others even with increased difficulty. Again, this is what happened already this year and clearly demonstrated, that building in a weak proof of work nonce into the consensus mechanism will lead to successful attacks against the network.
  48. 3 points
    donkeykong9000

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    Good to see you again Rob, I think we have been desperately in need of your presence over the last little while. Regarding the proposal, would we not be open to a greater possibility of 51% attack with masternodes assuming the attacker was willing to pony up the grc to become the masternodes? This seems like a step backwards in terms of security as well as decentralization. Regarding the new green pow mechanism, would this actually result in a net decrease of cpu/computing power required for running the grc network?
  49. 3 points
    jringo

    Gridcoin Future Technology Base

    I think there is some confusion. 1. Calling one proposal "piecemeal" which keeps the same codebase, which it is not by my understanding, while exclaiming the other proposal -- that is the bias I am concerned about. Production polls must be language neutral. You do bring up a good point, however: there are 3 proposals under public development that I can think of off the top of my head, excluding this one. 2. What bashing in the slack channel? I do not understand. The slack channel is beyond cordial, and infinitely more productive than cryptocurrencytalk forums. This is meant to be a production poll?! Hosting a production poll on a highly inactive forum is inappropriate, restrictive, and easier to manipulate than a client based poll. Would you consider hosting a poll on the client after ample time for community feedback and after your masternode proposal is detailed at length? We still need economic effects, governance effects, and possible negative consequences, at least. 3. How will this proposal affect superblock size? How will the superblock size be affected if there are 1000 addresses receiving GRC from the superblock once per day? What about 10,000? 100,000? Does this scale? 4. How does this help the primary goal of Gridcoin? In its current state, it sounds like a way to inflate the price of Gridcoin while doing little or nothing to encourage its principal use-case/utility: Data Analysis through a distributed computing network with open results and open access. There are ways to encourage holding GRC other than what is proposed here -- ways which seek to advance the principal use-case and encourage holding as a secondary effect. 4.1. Do masternodes remove a major reason to hold onto your GRC - voting? 5. By my current understanding, masternodes centralize control of development with early adopters and financially wealthy entities. This actively excludes the main target audience of the product from influencing the product's development. To me, the target audience of Gridcoin is researchers, both by the literal definition and by our definition (people who contribute their Idle Processing Potential to BOINC). 6. Neural Network is hype. If at some point the mechanism becomes a true neural network, we can always change the name back. As it stands now, it is a buzz word that makes it difficult (impossible) to pitch Gridcoin to reputable research facilities, universities, and their researchers. They know better. 7. While I do not support a switch to graphene at this time, I would like to 2nd many of the questions posited by @C.M 8. Why are we going back to PoW? This seems like it could be a disaster. 9. What is the original vision for Gridcoin? 10. Do you have documentation regarding all the tests you have done in your lab? 11. Have we given up on Proof of Research? The process regarding this proposal -- the lack of information, lack of discussion, lack of outreach, presentation, and using this forum as a deciding vote -- does not seem beneficial, particularly while we have a voting mechanism built into an open source algorithm. This makes me fear for my admittedly sizeable investment and more importantly, the future of Gridcoin. Please do what you can to tranquilize this fear. Thank you.
  50. 3 points
    Regarding the 400,000 minimum, I was trying to set it high enough so that our Neural Network becomes a minority that represents Gridcoin. Im totally open to creating a vote for the escrow level! I think we can make tranches in the vote, such as 50-99k, 100-200k, 201-300k, 401-500k and hold a vote for this. It should still remain a relatively high # (IE 100k) so that it is a challenge to "hold a leased seat" as part of the voting board, but I agree - it should be up to the community. Regarding POW heavy, no absolutely dont want that to be the case. To explain POSE a little more, there are two parts. Proof-of-Service is a requirement set forth requiring a neural node to have an external IP, and stay online, otherwise the node risks falling out of the payment queue. The queue is enforced using a program, the name is not yet determined, something to the effect of Gridcoin PoSE Bulldog, it is something that runs in linux alongside gridcoinresearchd, that checks in with other neural nodes every hour and votes for your node to be paid. If you do not vote, your payment falls behind in the queue , thereby enforcing Pose. The Mining is not intended to be PoW. It is intended to be a CPU algorithm that runs slow, and this is only to keep the blocks moving forward. Note that the miner only gets between 1-10% of each block, so it is already hardly beneficial to buy mining devices to mine gridcoin. With the monetary dynamics of a lower reward for higher nonces, it will become more beneficial for the user to mine slower (to receive a higher reward) than to throw more mining power at Gridcoin. I believe this system will work. In essence, it is a CPU miner with a variable scale reward per block of 1-10% depending on how high the nonce is for the solution. (With a tweak to X11 to break compatibility and to rename the algorithm POSE). This is very green, and on par with the stakeminer we have now. If it fails for some reason, our IT can port in the POSv3 utxout mining hash using the new "entire balance" idea, but Im trying to keep things simple and new, and move away from POS, and move to POSE for a fresh start. But from a high level, it is intended to be more efficient than a stakeminer. I would like to see 1% CPU usage in the new wallet, and 99% for boinc :). Rob
×

Important Information

By using CRYPTOCURRENCYTALK.COM, you agree to our Terms of Use.